wordpress_set_featured_image

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a mutation action ('Set'), implying it modifies data, but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if it overwrites existing featured images, requires specific permissions, returns confirmation or error details, or has side effects (e.g., caching updates). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Set featured image (thumbnail) for a post'. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, usage context, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies post data, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema only shows parameter names and types without descriptions. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'post' and 'featured image' but doesn't clarify what 'postId' and 'mediaId' represent (e.g., numeric IDs from WordPress, required existence). With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Set featured image (thumbnail) for a post' clearly states the action (set) and resource (featured image/thumbnail for a post). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_update_post' or 'wordpress_upload_media' by focusing specifically on the featured image relationship, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar tools (e.g., 'wordpress_remove_featured_image' doesn't exist in the list).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing media item via 'wordpress_upload_media'), or contrast with other post-update tools like 'wordpress_update_post' which might also handle featured images. The description implies usage for setting thumbnails but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.